Forum:Housekeeping
Hello everyone. So, as you know, the Conworlds Wiki is full of underdeveloped stubs and essentially blank pages. For this we can thank users who stayed for a few months and then left, never to be seen again. Therefore, we are left with pages such as ABAS and ASCI, which are generally not even considered pages in their own right, rather, just a sentence or two about something that could have been greatly expanded upon. As we at the Conworlds Wiki have existed for years, I feel like we should attempt to present the community in such a way that shows it. Henceforth, I propose that pages begin to meet a specific set of guidelines until they can be considered full pages, and pages which do not meet these guidelines after a certain amount of time without activity thus be deleted. Therefore, we can keep track of pages which are under full page candidacy and insure that no page goes without meeting the requirements before it is insured with "untouchability" by admins without explicit approval from the author (unless of course the author has been gone for a very long time). Here is what I propose: #New pages use the template until the page reaches the requirements for the full page title. ##Pages remain in the candidacy period until they reach 5,000 bytes in size (as this is Conworlds and not Wikipedia, there should be no reason it should not be able to be developed that large). ##Pages serve a purpose and are not short segments which can be easily added to larger pages. ##Pages which do not meet these requirements be deleted in their candidacy period after 1 month of no further development. #Upon the completion of the candidacy period, the template is removed, and that page enjoys full page rights. ##Full pages cannot be altered without the explicit consent of the author. ##If the author is not active or does not respond within 3 months of notification, the page becomes subject to Administrator management. #Pages created before these new policies be deleted if they do not meet the requirements within 1 month after the final vote on this matter. As I am not an Administrator, I do not have the power to make this possible on my own. Therefore, I will begin a petition for this Housekeeping policy here. First Proposal Voting Aye *(ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 02:32, April 11, 2015 (UTC) * [[User:JustinVuong| ]] 02:36, April 11, 2015 (UTC) (I have a few ideas/concerns I'll bring up in the deliberations.) *I tentatively support this - however I must make clear that a step in this direction will mean that rather then the quantity over quality layout this site currently retains this will mean it will be quality over quantity and thus a lot of work. --Cheers The Road to Hell [[User talk:Dog of War|''' is paved with good intentions']] 02:42, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Nay *5,000 byte minimum is excessive. That's like 80-90% of all articles on this Wikia. '''MizzKeyes' (Me/Say Hai/World/WAT) 02:51, April 11, 2015 (UTC) *Whilst I agree with MC, I aslo agree with MizzKeyes' proposal --Falloutfan08 ~ Talk ~ \o^o/ 11:37, April 11, 2015 (UTC) *Nope. We don't have a massive stream of active users. Enforcing a bureaucratic system of checks on independent projects does not speak well to the attractiveness of the Wikia. -Signed by Warmonkey (Administrator) (talk • • worlds) 18:10, April 11, 2015 (UTC) *Agreed. 5,000 is a bit excessive, and it shouldn't count templates, or at least only count them partially. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:32, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Deliberation First Deliberation (10 April 2015) I hereby open this first deliberation on the topic. Please elaborate on any concerns, ideas, or suggestions in this section. Every deliberation will close with a revised copy of the policy, which will not be made official until four out of five voters agree. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 02:51, April 11, 2015 (UTC) I think the 5,000 byte cutoff should be encouraged although as United Planets said, that would take away nearly 80-90% of our pages. Rather, I believe that this minimum requirement be applied to constate/conworld articles (i.e., an article about a country or planet). We need a more comprehensive list and specifications of how short a page can be based on the topic or its purpose. For example, a redirect page will be no longer than 100 bytes and those cannot be deleted. In addition, there are pages which uses excessive templates or coding, when in reality, are very short (despite having "5,000 bytes"). I think it can be a generalized rule but deleting pages that fall short of it will be largely dictated on a case-to-case basis. [[User:JustinVuong| ]] 02:58, April 11, 2015 (UTC) I understand the problem with actual abandoned stubs where there is only a sentence or a small paragraph. But I don't believe we should wipe out everything unless they are 5,000 bytes or more. If a small article is part of an active major project, it should be left alone. MizzKeyes (Me/Say Hai/World/WAT) 03:00, April 11, 2015 (UTC) I would suggest that pages deemed to be too "short" should be marked with a stub template to denote them as such, and if necessary the author informed. The author then could be given a time of say a month to bulk the article to "above stub levels" which result in the template being removed. If not then after a month the article should be then deleted. As for what makes up a stub, I would say something that is below at least three paragraphs and if possible an infobox template or is not extensive enough (for example, despite being under three paragraphs there is realistically nothing that can be added to a page like the National Anthem of the Union of Everett). In this case there could be other exceptions of this rule (such as redirect pages) which are exempt.--Cheers The Road to Hell [[User talk:Dog of War|''' is paved with good intentions']] 03:05, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Another option is to merge very small articles into larger articles. I think we shouldn't bother to inform long-term inactive users, also. Also, articles can be long but extremely low quailty (like Aca94's pages), and those ought to be deleted too. I agree with pretty much everything else that's been said. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:32, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Aca94 Deliberation (11 April 2015) I propose that we delete everything of User:Aca94's (unless at some point he actually did make a good article). I deleted some of his more recent bad articles a week ago, but there are still many more. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:32, April 11, 2015 (UTC) I agree, most of what he made was either a page with a template, copy-pasta from wikipedia, or just a one sentence page with broken English. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 18:39, April 11, 2015 (UTC) A lot of it was copy-pasta from Everett, too (especially the templates, where text was often doubled with one letter removed). Also, why'd you delete all of your FW pages? :( —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:44, April 11, 2015 (UTC) :Most of them were generally either unfinished, underdeveloped, or a bit of a cringe to look at. I find it both liberating and refreshing to not have them exist anymore. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 18:47, April 11, 2015 (UTC) ::Alright, but some of them seemed fine, and I prefer not to delete obsolete articles. :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:51, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Template Deliberation (11 April 2015) We need to work on our maintenance templates, also. First, should we change them all to ambox (like construction is now) or change them all to the traditional template style (colored box, like cleanup). Then we need to figure out which should be added and make more specific criteria on what pages they should be put on. Ideas? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:15, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Second Proposal Okay, after the conclusion of the previous deliberation, I now present to you the First Revision. #New pages use the template until the page reaches the requirements for the full page title. ##Pages consist of a substantial amount of development for the subject at hand, to be subjective to the topic of the page in relation to the project as a whole. ##Pages consist of at least one paragraph (4 to 6 sentences). ##Pages which do not meet these requirements be deleted in their candidacy period after 1 month of no further development. #Upon the completion of the candidacy period, the template is removed, and that page enjoys full page rights. ##Full pages cannot be altered (deleted, renamed, or moved) without the explicit consent of the author. ##If the author is not active or does not respond within 3 months of notification, the page becomes subject to Administrator (and Assistant) management. #Pages created before these new policies be allowed to exist based upon coherence and application of previous housekeeping rules. ##Pages still active created before these rules (their project has been updated within the month) are not immune from the new rule. Voting Aye *(ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 20:17, April 12, 2015 (UTC) * [[User:JustinVuong| ]] 23:28, April 12, 2015 (UTC) Tentative support as I believe there should be further elaborations regarding special cases. Nay Abstention *I suggest one minor change: Anyone (or at least administration) can rename/move a page if it needs a better title (due to being too vague, a typo, etc.) without author consent. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:13, April 15, 2015 (UTC) Second Deliberation (12 April 2015) Please comment on the above deliberations. Also, why are we using this silly date format in the headers? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:13, April 15, 2015 (UTC)